Letter by Martin Collacott, former Canadian Ambassador
Reprinted from: Vancouver Sun - Letter of the Day - November 1997

Canada has become the favoured destination for many thousands of people around the world who are aware that, no matter how unjustified their refugee claim and no matter how ill-qualified they may be to adjust to life here, once they present themselves at a port of entry, they are virtually assured of staying here indefinitely.

I became painfully aware of this while serving abroad as Canadian Ambassador to various countries with high numbers of refugee claimants. Some would report back to us with pride how they had succeeded in cheating the system. They apparently assumed that Canadian officials would admire their ingenuity in this regard - for surely a country like ours would not set up such a porous system unless we wanted to attract those adept at abusing it.

Not too many years ago, Canada would take pride in having one of the most successful records in the world in terms of taking in immigrants of all colours & creeds and effectively integrating them.

We are now increasingly eroding these achievements by allowing in large numbers of people who are ill-equipped to participate in Canadian society, a significant proportion of whom are bogus refugee claimants.

This results in great injustice to the thousands of excellent immigrants from developing countries who are well qualified to contribute to our country, who have waited patiently to go through proper channels and who are now being increasingly lumped together in the minds of many with those who are abusing the system.

One very important way in which we could bring some order to the current mess would be not to allow individuals to enter Canada by simply claiming to be a refugee. If they arrive on an aircraft or present themselves at a border port of entry, they would be turned back and advised to present their case to the nearest Canadian mission.

The present system, under which we allow them in first and then find it impossible to get rid of most failed applicants afterwards, basically involves giving up one of the essential attributes of a sovereign nation - effective control over who is allowed into the country and who is refused.

Lax Refugee System Exploited By 'Undesirables'
Reprinted from: Vancouver Sun - November 19, 1997 - A1

A recent string of crimes in Greater Vancouver that resulted in refugees being charged with murder has raised questions about whether Canada is being targeted by undesirables taking advantage of a lax immigration system.

The debate has been further fuelled by an admission of the father of a man charged with first degree murder in a North Vancouver shooting that he filed a false refugee claim after being advised to do so by a Vancouver immigration consultant.

Bill Bauer, a former ambassador and former member of the Immigration & Refugee Board - which rules on the validity of refugee claims - says the problems with the system are apparent the moment a refugee claimant enters Canada.

A court ruling that the Charter of Rights applies to anyone on Canadian soil forces the government to hear claimants, no matter how "patently fraudulent" their claims are, he says.

And Canadian Police Association executive director Scott Newark says criminals or deportees who could be turned away are gaining entrance because Canada's border screening is "an absolute joke".

Customs computers aren't linked with the immigration department system that lists ineligible deportees, or with Canadian and United States police systems that list ineligible criminals.

Martin Collacott, a former ambassador to Sri Lanka, says the answer is to turn back all claimants at the border and require them to make their claims at the Canadian Embassy in the country they just left. Almost all arrive from safe countries, such as the U.S. and the U.K., he says.

Collacott says reports suggest 90 percent of all Sri Lankans given refugee status return home for visits, despite claims of persecution. In the last five years, 18,271 Sri Lankans have claimed refugee status in Canada, more than from any other country.

But Huguette Shouldice of the immigration department says fear of persecution doesn't necessarily mean fearing for your life. It could mean, for example, that you fear not being permitted to have a job - a concern that wouldn't preclude you going home for a visit.

Smokey Stovern, a retired R.C.M.P. staff sergeant who headed the Asian organized crime section for the Co-ordinated Law Enforcement Unit, and was bureau manager for criminal intelligence services for B.C., says Canada's inability to deal with criminal and fraudulent claimants is a result of a lack of political will and weak legislation.

Vancouver has been the target of drug lords from East Bloc countries to China to the Caribbean, he says.

"They just come in waves and it's getting worse", he says. "We're letting in hundreds if not thousands of criminals who just run rampant."

Once in, claimants instantly have access to legal aid, welfare, schools and jobs while awaiting a hearing - which takes an average of 14 months. Then they can appeal to the Federal Court and the Immigration Minister, perhaps adding years onto a stay.

Phil Rankin, a Vancouver immigration lawyer, says the time lag between entry and forced exit is the biggest attraction for fraudulent claimants.

John Frecker, deputy chair of the IRB, says the board hopes to cut the time to six months by the end of 1998.

But even those who get turned down don't necessarily leave.

Only 20 percent of refused claimants are deported. The remaining 80 percent are expected to leave on their own and immigration officials have no computer program to track those who don't.

Many criminal deportees remain in Canada because the government is unable to obtain travel documents for them.

"The police have always had their hands tied because most of these countries won't take criminals back if you paid them." says Stovern.

According to Bauer, the problems are exacerbated by the fact that many members of the immigration and refugee board are political appointees who are unsophisticated, unknowledgeable, and "not necessarily competent".

Frecker admits that the board may have been lax in the past. In 1989, the board accepted 80 percent of claims. That's dropped to 41 percent.

"Members are more sophisticated at getting to the bottom of claims now." he said.

Nevertheless, Nanda Na Champassak of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees was chilled by a Vancouver Sun-CBC poll that 94 percent of B.C. respondents didn't believe refugee claimants are being adequately screened.

She said a similar backlash around the world has prompted the UN to look at whether it should assist countries in sending back fraudulent claimants.

But Rankin says he questions how valid the debate about immigrants really is.